Re: absolute pitch entry: accept an offset octave (issue 235010043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2015/05/03 16:42:02, Trevor Daniels wrote:

> Yes, in Keith's and my model \relative sets a starting pitch,
\absolute would
> set a starting octave only, and pitches thereafter are relative to the
octave of
> the previous note.

That's not really "absolute".  It's a different mode of relative.  I
very much doubt that this was Keith's proposal unless he corroborates
that.  And then I'll suspect someone is impersonating him.

> So the input notes are always in a clearly defined octave.
> Perhaps a better name for this mode of entry would be \relativeOctave.

This would be as complex to implement as the normal \relative.  I have
my reservations about how useful people would find this in practice.

> > Now I actually like the idea of using \absolute bes' for entering a
trumpet in
> > audible pitch using an input scale of { c d e f g ... }.  That's a
concept
> > different from \transpose c' bes' { ... } or \transpose c bes' which
primarily
> > suggest a connection between _printed_ pitch and audible pitch (like
> > \transposition does) rather than _input_ pitch and printed pitch.

> A nice idea (your original suggestion was too cute indeed to register
as meaning
> this to my old brain ;)  But it does rather muddy the concept of an
absolute
> pitch, which is enshrined in >10 years of manuals.

Well, the whole point of giving \absolute an argument was to modify the
interpretation of "absolute" and thus is all about muddying it.  This is
more about choosing the right balance between mud and convenience.

I find it awkward when \absolute c'' and \absolute g'' mean exactly the
same thing.  But it's not like I could not live with it.  But I still
would recommend just using c to keep one's options for possible later
changes.  And not have too much choice without associated meaningful
difference.

> > I do realize that \relative only ever touches the octave, and it
seems to make
> > little sense to have \absolute f turn { c, d, e, f g a b c d e f'
... } into
> one
> > continous scale even though it would only touch the octave (like
relative) and
> > allow using as few octave marks as possible for a given tessitura.

> No, a continuous scale would be \relativeOctave { c, d e f g a b c' d
e f ... }.
>   The c' resets the octave.  This doesn't work so well for a melody
oscillating a
> tone or two above and below a c, of course, but it does avoid multiple
''' and
> ,,,.

Again: I don't think that this was Keith's proposal.  And I am pretty
sure that none of my suggestions was Keith's proposal either: I just
angle for something useful to do with \absolute f.

> I wouldn't oppose it.  Indeed, the two possibilities could exist
together,
> depending on the presence or absence of a prefix pitch.  \absolute
bes' { ... }
> transposes the input; \absolute { ... } works like \relativeOctave.

Uh, we _have_ \absolute { ... } already.  And it does not work anything
like the \relativeOctave you describe and it would be a really bad idea
to change that.

\absolute x' { ... } should be a variation or parameterization on what
\absolute { ... } does.  Just like with \relative.

> Just some thoughts.  We need some other views I think.

Well yeah.  This is more or less in brainstorming phase.  I think Keith
has a point that people generally don't cherish using \transpose just
for making octave entry easier.  More often than not, it is used in the
context of some actually transposing instrument.

Maybe making \absolute transpose anything but octaves makes it scary
again.  But if we only document it in relation to c, nobody needs to
know.

This indeed warrants some more opinions.  Anybody want to ask on the
user list?

https://codereview.appspot.com/235010043/